Presidential: 15 Econological Issues!

[Christophe]

At the time of the various Green Pacts and Actions, here 15 questions of econological reflection(to ask our different candidates for example).

These are in fact the questions that I had prepared for the Complementary program of 15 days ago (see: https://www.econologie.com/forums/complement ... t3072.html )

1) Humanity has consumed about as much Oil since 1980 as before 1980 and consumption is accelerating. Planetary inertia is estimated to be around 20 years. We are therefore only at the very beginning of the phenomenon of global warming, is it not urgent to seriously address the resolution of the problem (ca.d otherwise than by studies and symposia which
characterize the climate problem)?

2) Why has there been (and still is) such a flippancy and inability to recognize the responsibility of man for global warming?

3) What is the capacity of carbon capture / absorption by the terrestrial ecosystem compared to our fossil emissions? Can this fixation be accelerated durably (the
reforestation is very limited because it is limited to the growth of the tree)?

4) In constant 2004 dollars, the sale of crude oil brought in more than 40 billion dollars from 000 to 1920, including 2006 in the last 30 years. This figure only takes into account the
sale of crude oil (and therefore in no way the creation of wealth that has allowed the exploitation of this crude oil). The $ 5500 billion of the Stern report published last fall aren't they
ridiculous in comparison? Especially since the figure of 40 MM will be greatly exceeded during the 000st century due to the increase in demand.

5) The increase in crude prices tends to develop alternative energy solutions but also to make profitable oil exploitation which was not (or no longer) before. This
Isn't it paradoxical in the fight against the greenhouse effect? What are the possible economic alternatives?

6) Is public subsidization of renewable energy materials really the right solution? It biases profitability calculations, allows control of market growth and in some cases, overcharging of equipment (a large part of the premium going directly into the seller's profit). Wouldn't it make more sense to subsidize industrial research for truly profitable energy solutions?

7) Political ecology is guilty. Many people turn their backs on ecology for this reason. Isn't it time to change this behavior by no longer blaming polluters but by
rewarding environmental efforts (at all levels of our society).

8) Do the actions of the environmental activists not do more wrong than anything else in the defense of the environment in public opinion?

9) Could our generation be accused of crimes against humanity (or the environment) by future generations?

10) The Permian extinction is the greatest mass extinction that the Earth has known: 95% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species have disappeared. Studies have shown that it would have been initiated by natural releases of greenhouse gases in large quantities during a very short geological time. Is it conceivable that man has started a mass extinction
similar?

11) How can the influence and the economic weight of fossil fuels be reduced as quickly as possible?

12) The State launches awareness campaigns against global warming, but it disadvantages eco-responsible behavior. Example: does it make sense to subsidize solar panels when business trips are largely tax exempt?

13) Can you estimate the human and animal cost for 2050 and 2100 of global warming? Order of comparison with the wars of the 20th century?

14) Does the end of the massive exploitation of fossil fuels not mean the end of capitalism as we know it? Isn't it time to prepare for this shock by starting to
think about a more “econological” society?

15) Can we trust the big car manufacturers to fight against the greenhouse effect? The average mass of the vehicles increases, their lifespan of the vehicles decreases and especially the
park is just growing. What should we think of their behavior with regard to biofuels in the short cycle (pure vegetable oil)?

Some of these questions could be retained to make the 1st CyberEconoAction? What do you think?

[Christophe]

Not a word?

Are my questions bad or too stupid?

[Targol]

Not a word?

Are my questions bad or too stupid?

But no Christophe, I find them very interesting and well documented your questions.
I find them all the more relevant as they change a little from the consensus questions that the majority of journalists ask while being convinced that they are at the forefront of action against global warming.

There is hardly that the 2nd which seems to me a little out of date insofar as no one any more (except the lab paid 500M $ by Exxon) does not dispute the responsibility of the man in this warming.

[Christophe]

Phew I had a slight doubt!

So are we preparing this CyberAction "15 questions for candidates"?

[bham]

Uh, Christophe, it's not the idea that I had 15 questions to ask the presidential candidates.
To give an opinion on 1, for example, I would say that it is more an observation than a real question. Applicants can only answer yes, but that doesn't make a difference.
You oscillate between philosophical questions (2,8,9) technical questions (3,10,13) or politico-economic (4,5,13) to which I see badly the presidential ones answered. Questions 6,7,11,12,14 seem to me more to be the domain of a political program and therefore closer to what should be asked. As for question 15, it seems to me that you could replace "big car manufacturers" by big capitalism and the latter by Powers in place. And you even go so far as to put the hat of HVP obscurantism on the car manufacturers. Isn't that a deceptively naive question?
I remain interested in this proposal of 15 questions to ask, but I would see it more under a commitment aspect than reflection.
An example :
France has chosen the development of the EPR which is a clean solution from a greenhouse gas point of view, which has advantages from an economic (financial and employment) and political (autonomy) point of view for the countries and some national companies but which do not bring much more than the current nuclear power plants. Do these interests not hinder the development of other industries, other research? the state is the order giver, don't you think, as a president, that the state must initiate and encourage research in the field of free energy, at the risk of seeing the traditional nuclear industry go extinct . Because in international competition, it is better to stay one step ahead rather than staying on the track by making developments that are not. So should we wait for India or China to cut us short by selling us their own technology? Unless there is a consensus between the economic powers not to develop anything in the area of ​​free energy production, as long as the health of the oil economy does not jeopardize the world economy and the powers in place. What is your opinion on the matter?
This is an example of what I would see as a question.

[Targol]

An example :
France has chosen to develop the EPR, which is a clean solution from a greenhouse gas (...) perspective.

Only if you "forget" the extraction and transport of fuel as well as the transport and management of the waste produced.

(...) which has advantages from an economic point of view (financial and employment) (...)

Much less than the alternative solutions proposed (with the same budget) by the study "an alternating current for the great west" of which you will find a summary in pdf format here and who proposes to create WITH THE SAME BUDGET AS THE EPR (I remind you) 15 times more jobs.

(...) and political (autonomy) for the country and certain national companies (...)

Where does autonomy come from when 100% of the fuel is imported and more and more countries are considering building power plants. The pressures that exist today around petroleum resources are those of tomorrow around uranium mines.

(...) but which do not bring much more than the current nuclear power plants. Do these interests not hinder the development of other industries, other research? the state is the order giver, don't you think, as a president, that the state must initiate and encourage research in the field of free energy, at the risk of seeing the traditional nuclear industry go extinct . Because in international competition, it is better to stay one step ahead rather than staying on the track by making developments that are not. So should we wait for India or China to cut us short by selling us their own technology? Unless there is a consensus between the economic powers not to develop anything in the area of ​​free energy production, as long as the health of the oil economy does not jeopardize the world economy and the powers in place.

For everything else, I agree

[bham]

An example :
France has chosen to develop the EPR, which is a clean solution from a greenhouse gas (...) perspective.

Only if you "forget" the extraction and transport of fuel as well as the transport and management of waste produced.

(...) which has advantages from an economic point of view (financial and employment) (...)

Much less than the alternative solutions proposed (with the same budget) by the study "an alternating current for the great west" of which you will find a summary in pdf format here and who proposes to create WITH THE SAME BUDGET AS THE EPR (I remind you) 15 times more jobs.

(...) and political (autonomy) for the country and certain national companies (...)

Where does autonomy come from when 100% of the fuel is imported and more and more countries are considering building power plants. The pressures that exist today around petroleum resources are those of tomorrow around uranium mines.

I agree 100% with you Targol but in this example, I deliberately wanted to adopt the well-meaning language of the State vis-à-vis nuclear power and not my own opinion. In this kind of question, it is useless, in my opinion, to go directly "in the bacon" and to make a for / against too long. So my point is to say: it's good (even if I don't think so) but it's not the solution for the future.

[Targol]

Ahhhh phew It reassures me.
I also found that this formulation did not resemble the Bham whose opinions I had learned to appreciate

[bham]

Ahhhh phew It reassures me.
I also found that this formulation did not resemble the Bham whose opinions I had learned to appreciate

it's too much, it's too much !!

Otherwise, concerning the fifteen questions, I suggest targeting 15 econological themes which could each be the subject of a somewhat elaborate question.

[Capt_Maloche]

I really like that,

there is the outline of a simple text ready to be distributed for an awareness of the masses

I would be for a neutral text evoking only the risks for the planet (without history of money or political party)

FOR ON THE PLANET SCALE, THE ECONOMY MEANS NO LONGER, does it?

It is absolutely necessary to check or have checked whether the z-machine is indeed the solution we are waiting for in order to promote it by all means.